• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

DC Cinematic Universe |OT| Superfriends with Benefits

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

broncobuster

Banned
Can we talk openly about Bats stance on killing now? Perhaps additional exposition was needed to be extra explicit that Batman is at his lowest point in this film.

Imagine picking up Superior Spider-Man or a black suit issue and believing that's who Spider-Man is. In those cases, there's a plot device to instigate the character's darker personality. Here, it's a matter of hope beaten out of Bruce after half a life spent on his campaign against crime. He stops seeing progress. He lost partners, friends, allies. Two years ago he witnessed aliens invade the planet and smash up a city. It only serves to magnify his inadequacies and insecurities. Batman v Superman could've had Alfred chide Batman even further on his darker methods that go against what he used to stand for. At least address the killing to highlight how far Batman has fallen. I'd be miffed if it's revealed Batman was a killer in his past or after these events. As it stands? A Batman that lost his way, only to find it with the help of Superman is a poignant development. I'll admit it's not handled the best in BvS. What I found to be a real bummer
is how we rushed from Batman v Superman to Dawn of Justice. No nice Batman and Superman as friends moments.
 
N

Ninjimbo

Member
broncobuster said:
Can we talk openly about Bats stance on killing now? Perhaps additional exposition was needed to be extra explicit that Batman is at his lowest point in this film.]
Click to expand...
Isn't there a line that Bruce drops early on that hints at a morally sketchy Batman? It's right after the branding scene and Bruce says something like "We were never good guys" or something close to that effect.

I understand that to mean that this Bruce wasn't blind about what he is doing. Considering the nature of his job, I always thought it was a bit silly to have some no-kill rule.
 
I

IconGrist

Member
Ninjimbo said:
Isn't there a line that Bruce drops early on that hints at a morally sketchy Batman? It's right after the branding scene and Bruce says something like "We were never good guys" or something close to that effect.

I understand that to mean that this Bruce wasn't blind about what he is doing. Considering the nature of his job, I always thought it was a bit silly to have some no-kill rule.
Click to expand...

Alfred and Bruce have a couple conversations about it. It's not "Hey you kill now and that's bad, mmkay" but they do talk about it. It's part of Bruce's character arc about how nothing he's done has mattered. By the end of the movie he doesn't feel that way anymore.

The movie has its issues but Bruce's arc was done very well.
 
P

Poodlestrike

Banned
Ninjimbo said:
Isn't there a line that Bruce drops early on that hints at a morally sketchy Batman? It's right after the branding scene and Bruce says something like "We were never good guys" or something close to that effect.

I understand that to mean that this Bruce wasn't blind about what he is doing. Considering the nature of his job, I always thought it was a bit silly to have some no-kill rule.
Click to expand...

The movie ultimately disagrees with you, though Senpai and Scientist will probably disagree.

Batman in BvS is a man who has thoroughly lost his way. He's been beaten down, and he regards himself as just another criminal. You're not supposed to agree with him or his methods. Thus the reversal at the end; from nothing lasts, everything breaks to men are still good, that which is broken can be rebuilt. It's why he
doesn't brand Lex at the very end
.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
To the people that say it's not Batman if he kills I just have a question: Could a writer make a story that has Batman kill if only to get him to the conclusion that he shouldn't and to further explain the no-kill policy, or does he have to be bloodless the entire time forever and ever?

broncobuster said:
Can we talk openly about Bats stance on killing now? Perhaps additional exposition was needed to be extra explicit that Batman is at his lowest point in this film.

Imagine picking up Superior Spider-Man or a black suit issue and believing that's who Spider-Man is. In those cases, there's a plot device to instigate the character's darker personality. Here, it's a matter of hope beaten out of Bruce after half a life spent on his campaign against crime. He stops seeing progress. He lost partners, friends, allies. Two years ago he witnessed aliens invade the planet and smash up a city. It only serves to magnify his inadequacies and insecurities. Batman v Superman could've had Alfred chide Batman even further on his darker methods that go against what he used to stand for. At least address the killing to highlight how far Batman has fallen. I'd be miffed if it's revealed Batman was a killer in his past or after these events. As it stands? A Batman that lost his way, only to find it with the help of Superman is a poignant development. I'll admit it's not handled the best in BvS.
Click to expand...

Gotta agree with this. It's exactly how I interpreted things.
 
S

Sibersk Esto

Banned
If Batman kills, or to be fair, his actions directly lead to people dying, then I don't think the GCPD should ever support him.

Like, it's already said that the brand leads to deaths in prison, so don't put that dude in gen pop.
 
S

Smokey_Run

Member
Ninjimbo said:
Isn't there a line that Bruce drops early on that hints at a morally sketchy Batman? It's right after the branding scene and Bruce says something like "We were never good guys" or something close to that effect.

I understand that to mean that this Bruce wasn't blind about what he is doing. Considering the nature of his job, I always thought it was a bit silly to have some no-kill rule.
Click to expand...

The scene implies Batman has become more ruthless since the events of Man of Steel. The branding is new. Alfred drops the paper in front of him and says "New rules?" and Bruce retorts with "We've always been criminals." And then we get the Alfred line from all the trailers about turning good men cruel.

The next scene with Clark cooking breakfast states the criminal from the night before is the second victim to be branded in the past 18 months. The first being a child sex offender or something along those lines. You then get the whole "The brand is a death sentence in prison" line which makes ZERO sense since there have only been one victim up until that point and he was only jumped and in critical condition. Also, someone in prison for a child sex offense has a target on their back whether Batman brands him or not.

At most, all of the questionable Batman stuff is implied to have only been happening since Man of Steel, but they do a terrible job getting the point across.
 
W

What did he mean by this?

Member
broncobuster said:
Can we talk openly about Bats stance on killing now? Perhaps additional exposition was needed to be extra explicit that Batman is at his lowest point in this film.

Imagine picking up Superior Spider-Man or a black suit issue and believing that's who Spider-Man is. In those cases, there's a plot device to instigate the character's darker personality. Here, it's a matter of hope beaten out of Bruce after half a life spent on his campaign against crime. He stops seeing progress. He lost partners, friends, allies. Two years ago he witnessed aliens invade the planet and smash up a city. It only serves to magnify his inadequacies and insecurities. Batman v Superman could've had Alfred chide Batman even further on his darker methods that go against what he used to stand for. At least address the killing to highlight how far Batman has fallen. I'd be miffed if it's revealed Batman was a killer in his past or after these events. As it stands? A Batman that lost his way, only to find it with the help of Superman is a poignant development. I'll admit it's not handled the best in BvS. What I found to be a real bummer
is how we rushed from Batman v Superman to Dawn of Justice. No nice Batman and Superman as friends moments.
Click to expand...


I would be inclined to believe this if not for the film's focus on Batman branding instead of killing. Even that scene you touch one, Alfred was saying that in reference to Batmans new trend of branding people, not of killing people. No one at any point explicitly references Batman killing, not Alfred, not Perry and Clark in their discussion, not Superman when he stomps the batmobile, not even Bruce himself or the news segments on the tv. Its all baffling.
 
B

broncobuster

Banned
Sibersk Esto said:
If Batman kills, or to be fair, his actions directly lead to people dying, then I don't think the GCPD should ever support him.

Like, it's already said that the brand leads to deaths in prison, so don't put that dude in gen pop.
Click to expand...

It isn't explicitly clear in the film. Between how the cops react to Bats and the signal being covered, it's possible his relationship with the police is severed. At the same time, when Superman confronts Batman, he speaks as if the police still shine the bat signal. It's wishy-washy. The brand is explained as a recent development, and again, it's not explicit but
there's an implication Luthor is behind it if he's sending Clark pictures of dead inmates.

What did he mean by this? said:
I would be inclined to believe this if not for the film's focus on Batman branding instead of killing. Even that scene you touch one, Alfred was saying that in reference to Batmans new trend of branding people, not of killing people. No one at any point explicitly references Batman killing, not Alfred, not Perry and Clark in their discussion, not Superman when he stomps the batmobile, not even Bruce himself or the news segments on the tv. Its all baffling.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying. They should have added exposition to say, yes, Batman is killing; and yes, it is a recent development.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
Smokey_Run said:
At most, all of the questionable Batman stuff is implied to have only been happening since Man of Steel, but they do a terrible job getting the point across.
Click to expand...

I want to know how this is a terrible job of getting the point across and not people just not paying attention to things.
It was an entire conversation centered around it with Alfred plus news casting stating how it's only happened twice now.
Like, do they need to stop the movie and have Snyder himself there telling the audience "GUYS, THIS SHIT IS RECENT OK"
 
A

Ashhong

Member
Sibersk Esto said:
If Batman kills, or to be fair, his actions directly lead to people dying, then I don't think the GCPD should ever support him.

Like, it's already said that the brand leads to deaths in prison, so don't put that dude in gen pop.
Click to expand...

To be fair, they have a sample size of ONE dude regarding that. He had only branded 1 person before he put that other guy in there.
 
S

Senoculum

Member
evil solrac v3.0 said:
Article got its facts wrong and is still one of these "superman should be perfect" no matter what happens wishful thinking. Society has moved away from having our heroes be infallible.
Click to expand...

Which is one of the reasons I enjoyed Man of Steel so much. In the beginning of his life, Clark Kent was a boy, then a teen, and a young man. Everyone eventually finds themselves, given time. And as a man of Earth, Superman should have had the same moral quandaries as he aged. The only thing we didn't see was his hormonal stages, lol. He wasn't born with his red cape sewed on!
 
S

Smokey_Run

Member
RDreamer said:
I want to know how this is a terrible job of getting the point across and not people just not paying attention to things.
It was an entire conversation centered around it with Alfred plus news casting stating how it's only happened twice now.
Like, do they need to stop the movie and have Snyder himself there telling the audience "GUYS, THIS SHIT IS RECENT OK"
Click to expand...

I agree. I think too many people play on their phones while watching movies. I got it the first time I saw it, but others didn't for whatever reason.

It's funny, people don't want "hit you over the head" exposition in movies, but then people get completely lost when its not there.

Ashhong said:
To be fair, they have a sample size of ONE dude regarding that. He had only branded 1 person before he put that other guy in there.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget the crime he's in there for too. The man was a target regardless of the branding.
 
N

Ninjimbo

Member
Poodlestrike said:
The movie ultimately disagrees with you, though Senpai and Scientist will probably disagree.

Batman in BvS is a man who has thoroughly lost his way. He's been beaten down, and he regards himself as just another criminal. You're not supposed to agree with him or his methods. Thus the reversal at the end; from nothing lasts, everything breaks to men are still good, that which is broken can be rebuilt. It's why he
doesn't brand Lex at the very end
.
Click to expand...
I got that part.

Batman redeems himself at the end which I thought was the point of the Martha scene. He doesn't kill except for that one extreme circumstance which was crystal clear on why Bruce makes the choice. Him making that choice not to brand Luthor was the exclamation of him going through another change.

I was speaking generally of the no-kill rule that seems to govern the Batman mythology. I don't see why the character should adhere strictly to it since that's not what defines him at least to me.
 
G

greendomo's ghost

Member
My problem is with the way Snyder has interpreted the characters, not their actions. If you nail the character right, you can forgive certain actions, or gloss over them.

In this movie, Snyder gave us Superman who saves people, but he looks so glum while he's doing it, like he's some mythological character carrying the weight on his shoulders. He floats above the people he is going to save like an angel, but the Superman from the comics that I like is the one that comes down to our level. He is relatable, he is our friend, he is inspirational.

For example, the girl he saves in Mexico he just rescues her, lands and puts her down, and stands there as everyone tries to touch him. I feel like Superman would crouch down on one knee and comfort the girl. He just still feels so detached from humanity. I don't mind a Superman who questions himself, or who feels rage, or doubt. But I think that you can have those conflicts exist in a person who does inherently want to do good, and want to go above and beyond to help others.
 
J

jackdoe

Member
What did he mean by this? said:
I would be inclined to believe this if not for the film's focus on Batman branding instead of killing. Even that scene you touch one, Alfred was saying that in reference to Batmans new trend of branding people, not of killing people. No one at any point explicitly references Batman killing, not Alfred, not Perry and Clark in their discussion, not Superman when he stomps the batmobile, not even Bruce himself or the news segments on the tv. Its all baffling.
Click to expand...
Technically, those people are not supposed to be dead, in spite of being put into situations where they should be dead. It's like Arkham Knight. You do things to the enemies like blowing them up with their own explosives, that should kill them but doesn't (they're all magically unconscious and in stable condition). Christopher Nolan was guilty of this and so is Zack Snyder.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
greendomo's ghost said:
My problem is with the way Snyder has interpreted the characters, not their actions. If you nail the character right, you can forgive certain actions, or gloss over them.

In this movie, Snyder gave us Superman who saves people, but he looks so glum while he's doing it, like he's some mythological character carrying the weight on his shoulders. He floats above the people he is going to save like an angel, but the Superman from the comics that I like is the one that comes down to our level. He is relatable, he is our friend, he is inspirational.

For example, the girl he saves in Mexico he just rescues her, lands and puts her down, and stands there as everyone tries to touch him. I feel like Superman would crouch down on one knee and comfort the girl. He just still feels so detached from humanity. I don't mind a Superman who questions himself, or who feels rage, or doubt. But I think that you can have those conflicts exist in a person who does inherently want to do good, and want to go above and beyond to help others.
Click to expand...

But the question I have is where do you see that this Superman doesn't inherently want to do good or isn't going above and beyond to help others? Like, that's exactly what he's doing in the Mexico scene.
He just left his office job and flew halfway around the world to go help. How is that not above and beyond?

Yes he looks a bit glum while doing it, but that's because he's currently going above and beyond all he can and is still being questioned over and over on the news. He's putting this heart and soul into it and humanity doesn't understand that.
 
T

thehypocrite

Member
I think some people should see the film again and pay attention this time, they are complaining about things that aren't wrong and they just missed it while watching the movie.
 
A

Ashhong

Member
greendomo's ghost said:
My problem is with the way Snyder has interpreted the characters, not their actions. If you nail the character right, you can forgive certain actions, or gloss over them.

In this movie, Snyder gave us Superman who saves people, but he looks so glum while he's doing it, like he's some mythological character carrying the weight on his shoulders. He floats above the people he is going to save like an angel, but the Superman from the comics that I like is the one that comes down to our level. He is relatable, he is our friend, he is inspirational.

For example, the girl he saves in Mexico he just rescues her, lands and puts her down, and stands there as everyone tries to touch him. I feel like Superman would crouch down on one knee and comfort the girl. He just still feels so detached from humanity. I don't mind a Superman who questions himself, or who feels rage, or doubt. But I think that you can have those conflicts exist in a person who does inherently want to do good, and want to go above and beyond to help others.
Click to expand...

These points about Superman are spot on in general. My comment though is that this Superman is indeed detached from humanity. Through the government hearings, the protests, etc, he feels he has no place on Earth, and why he doesn't consider it his world.

I think that's all intentional to Snyder's long 3 movie arc of Superman, where at the end of this he finally realizes it's his world, and things will be different next movie. Or at the very least, MoS2.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
Scientist Supreme! said:
What facts?
Also, I don't it saying superman should be perfect but he should always strive to be.
Click to expand...

How is he not striving to be?

Here's what bugs me about the Superman fans that don't like this movie because of the portrayal. One person says the important thing about Superman isn't the god part, it's the human part. Now people are insisting that he needs to be so ridiculously above and beyond as to be inhuman and basically godly. The movie portrays a very human Superman trying his best to go above and beyond and people don't seem to like it because he should be smiling? He should be more idealized? I literally don't get it.
 
P

Poodlestrike

Banned
greendomo's ghost said:
My problem is with the way Snyder has interpreted the characters, not their actions. If you nail the character right, you can forgive certain actions, or gloss over them.

In this movie, Snyder gave us Superman who saves people, but he looks so glum while he's doing it, like he's some mythological character carrying the weight on his shoulders. He floats above the people he is going to save like an angel, but the Superman from the comics that I like is the one that comes down to our level. He is relatable, he is our friend, he is inspirational.

For example, the girl he saves in Mexico he just rescues her, lands and puts her down, and stands there as everyone tries to touch him. I feel like Superman would crouch down on one knee and comfort the girl. He just still feels so detached from humanity. I don't mind a Superman who questions himself, or who feels rage, or doubt. But I think that you can have those conflicts exist in a person who does inherently want to do good, and want to go above and beyond to help others.
Click to expand...

He does want to do good. Literally everything he does in this movie is about protecting people, even when he leaves. His fundamental fear is that by being Superman, he's doing more harm than good. That's what the senate hearing is about too. Now he has an answer. When (not if, let's be real here) he
comes back from the dead
, he'll presumably be more comfortable, but as is, it's an extremely compelling conflict. For me, at least. I get why the execution could be lacking for some.
 
W

witness

Member
Ashhong said:
I haven't looked but I thought everyone was saying it had the biggest drop in history? Or are you being sarcastic..
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. A $15 million Monday is huge considering it's not the middle of summer and wasn't a national holiday. Stronger hold and higher total than what F7 did at this time last year.

Internationally it did $31m, which is again huge. Global total $468m and should hit $500m today.
 
I

IconGrist

Member
thehypocrite said:
I think some people should see the film again and pay attention this time, they are complaining about things that aren't wrong and they just missed it while watching the movie.
Click to expand...

This has been getting on my nerves but at the same time I think I understand it. There is a lot going on in this movie. A lot. Not all of it is good or even needed but with so much going on it can be hard to grasp everything and get the big picture. Definitely a movie that needs to be seen at least a couple of times if you have a love for these characters. Some people didn't catch
Bruce being lifted by the bats was a dream and that soured them about things right away
and I've read other similar instances. The only bit that needed either removal or better fleshing out, in my opinion, was the African incident subplot. Everything else I had a firm grasp on. Wouldn't mind what I did catch being fleshed out some more as well though.
 
A

Ashhong

Member
What the hell, I specifically remember people saying that it had the biggest drop in history, and IGN made an article about it. I never read the article or anything so don't know if it was true.

So confused right now.
 
I

IconGrist

Member
Ashhong said:
What the hell, I specifically remember people saying that it had the biggest drop in history, and IGN made an article about it. I never read the article or anything so don't know if it was true.

So confused right now.
Click to expand...

It had a bad Friday to Saturday drop. Or Saturday to Sunday. Or Easter drop. Something along those lines. I didn't really read it through.
 
A

a916

Member
Interesting even in the film's interviews that Affleck says his Batman is on the verge of being moral bankrupt. It seems they were very intent on doing a Batman on the verge of going insane and break down. For me, I felt they executed on it.

Ashhong said:
What the hell, I specifically remember people saying that it had the biggest drop in history, and IGN made an article about it. I never read the article or anything so don't know if it was true.

So confused right now.
Click to expand...

It had the biggest drop for a Comic Book movie domestically from Fri to Sunday which was I believe 59%.
 
J

jackdoe

Member
a916 said:
Interesting even in the film's interviews that Affleck says his Batman is on the verge of being moral bankrupt. It seems they were very intent on doing a Batman on the verge of going insane and break down. For me, I felt they executed on it.
Click to expand...
Haha, considering how many people hated this version of Batman, they succeeded. And it was pretty gutsy of WB to let their Batman a straight up villain for 2/3rds of their big team up movie. I don't think Iron Man is going to be anywhere near this villainous in Civil War.
 
A

Ashhong

Member
a916 said:
Interesting even in the film's interviews that Affleck says his Batman is on the verge of being moral bankrupt. It seems they were very intent on doing a Batman on the verge of going insane and break down. For me, I felt they executed on it..
Click to expand...

Yea they've been talking about Batman being on the edge for the entire promotion cycle. This is an experienced Batman who's at the end of his ropes and doesn't care anymore. Plus he says that in his conversations with Alfred

Are we to believe he was retired before MoS? I thought I read that a long time ago, but the film never says that
 
P

PBY

Banned
Ashhong said:
Yea they've been talking about Batman being on the edge for the entire promotion cycle. This is an experienced Batman who's at the end of his ropes and doesn't care anymore. Plus he says that in his conversations with Alfred
Click to expand...

None of this was conveyed in the film tho. Even his talks with Alfred, which are like all of 2 minutes, don't really give you that sense fully.
 
P

Poodlestrike

Banned
PBY said:
None of this was conveyed in the film tho. Even his talks with Alfred, which are like all of 2 minutes, don't really give you that sense fully.
Click to expand...

YMMV, I guess. This is one of those areas that the execution gets in the way. The fever that turns good men cruel refers to him, his crusade turning into something... ugly.
 
A

Ashhong

Member
PBY said:
None of this was conveyed in the film tho. Even his talks with Alfred, which are like all of 2 minutes, don't really give you that sense fully.
Click to expand...

I don't have the exact words, but that conversation with him where they talked about good men left, him going overboard and stuff went over this. It may not have been fully fleshed out, but I think it's wrong to say that none of it was conveyed. It's there..just really briefly.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
PBY said:
None of this was conveyed in the film tho. Even his talks with Alfred, which are like all of 2 minutes, don't really give you that sense fully.
Click to expand...

But it was conveyed in the film. I didn't watch a single interview before the movie at all. Only thing I saw was like one trailer. I got it from the film. My roommate that I saw it with got that from the film. My good friend that went earlier than me got that from the film.
 
P

PBY

Banned
Poodlestrike said:
YMMV, I guess. This is one of those areas that the execution gets in the way. The fever that turns good men cruel refers to him, his crusade turning into something... ugly.
Click to expand...

Ashhong said:
I don't have the exact words, but that conversation with him where they talked about good men left, him going overboard and stuff went over this. It may not have been fully fleshed out, but I think it's wrong to say that none of it was conveyed. It's there..just really briefly.
Click to expand...

I guess? I had no idea; seems like a major thematic point, should have been a central touchstone. I kind of hope that arc isn't totally done though because I feel like it would be really cool for a solo Batman movie.
 
P

Poodlestrike

Banned
RDreamer said:
The movie score is amazingly well done all around, I think.
Click to expand...

See, this I will disagree with. The score is great in a vacuum, but it's sorely lacking in tonal variety, and it's mixed overly loud. It works great for something like the Wayne murders or Wondy's arrival, but it fucks up the rescue montage and the desert scene something FIERCE.
 
A

Ashhong

Member
PBY said:
I guess? I had no idea; seems like a major thematic point, should have been a central touchstone. I kind of hope that arc isn't totally done though because I feel like it would be really cool for a solo Batman movie.
Click to expand...

Maybe it will be expanded a little more in the DC, but I feel like that arc is over with Bruce's final lines in the movie. Though I guess they could still explore it somewhat in a solo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Gal Gadot, and Ezra Miller - not in new DC
21
2K
NahaNago replied
Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League |OT| Sent to Die
18 19 20 21 22
1K
69K
T-0800 replied
Suicide : Squad; Kill The Justice League | Review Thread
Analysis Review 4 5 6 7 8
355
33K
Certinty replied
Suicide Squad won't be the last game in the Arkham series, says DC Boss
Game Dev
31
2K
Torrent of Pork replied
Variety: When Superman and Batman Copyrights Expire in a Decade, Will It Be Kryptonite for DC?
20
2K
Skyfox replied
Top Bottom